000			02138nab a2200241 c 4500
999			_c147637 _d147637
003			ES-MaIEF
005			20230606112758.0
007			ta
008			230606t2022 ne ||||| |||| 00| 0|eng d
040			_aES-MaIEF _bspa _cES-MaIEF
100	1		_968742 _aHulten, Mart van
245		0	_aIs the symmetrical classification method EU proof? _c Mart van Hulten & Ton Stevens
500			_aResumen.
520			_aOne way to solve classification conflicts involving hybrid entities is for states to apply a so-called symmetrical classification method, whereby a state adopts for its domestic tax purposes the tax classification applied to an entity by another state. The outcome of applying such a method can be that a state classifies foreign entities differently from domestic entities, raising potential issues from an EU law perspective when EU Member States are involved. For instance, in case a cross-border situation leads to more burdensome taxation compared to the domestic situation, a violation of the EU fundamental freedoms can be present, whereas if the classification leads to a lower tax burden for certain enterprises, a violation of EU State aid rules can be the result. In this article, we assess the conformity with primary EU law of tax classification methods, and especially of the symmetrical classification method. It is concluded that the risk of incompatibility with the EU fundamental freedoms and EU State aid rules should typically be limited when EU Member States align their tax classification rules with those of other states to alleviate risks of double (non-)taxation. Risks can increase, however, for instance if nationality is used as a distinguishing criterion, or where under- or overkill occurs.
650		4	_968772 _aASIMETRÍAS HÍBRIDAS
650		4	_961626 _aINSTRUMENTOS HÍBRIDOS FINANCIEROS
650		4	_aDERECHO TRIBUTARIO _942375
650		4	_941975 _aDERECHO COMUNITARIO EUROPEO
650			_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
700			_964391 _aStevens, Ton
773	0		_9169559 _oOP 2141-B/2022/6 _tEC Tax Review _w(IEF)124968 _x 0928-2750 [print] _g v. 31, n. 6, December 2022, p. 312-325
942			_cART